This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I just wanted to gauge your opinion on discrimination laws as well as anti-discrimination laws.

I didnt want to go there in this thread. I supported it for the same reasons I discussed for anti-discrimination laws however I think it has achieved it's goals (as much as it ever will) and it's time to wrap it up. I also dont like the idea of that, but again....see the greater societal good for the targeted groups AND society in general.

Originally Posted by Bucky

Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.

Originally Posted by Bucky

I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Actually, I don't think you understand the issue... its not a black v white discrimination; it was an offense to the shop owners moral sensibilities, similar to abortion.

Now, I certainly appreciate the civil law aspect to this. It is, in fact, a civil law conflict with moral law. What is somewhat reprehensible are posters that do not understand this. It is nothing at all like discrimination based upon race, color, creed, sex or national origin. It is a discrimination based upon a criteria that mainstream religions find morally wrong.

This was not a simple sale of goods. It was a matter of specific artistic performance; they asked the baker to apply his artistic skills to create something to celebrate something he found abhorrent. Its not that he found this abhorrent because of some sort of unsubstantiated personal bigotry, but because of a moral conviction based upon the Bible, a book a significant group of American's believe is the moral law (and many believe trumps civil law).

The closest controversy we have to this is abortion. The only thing wrong with my abortion analogy, however, is that abortion doctors chose to be in the profession. That said, there are OB/GYN's that will not perform abortions under any circumstance based upon moral conviction.

I can appreciate the civil side of this argument. The intellectually honest need to appreciate the moral side of this as well. It is an interesting case.

So if the shop owner says that providing services to blacks and claims it violates their moral sensibilities, you think there would be the same call for special privileges to be applied?

Yeah, I know that individual freedom is an enemy to you, since you so easily toss around words like "compel" and "force".

No, I just don't believe "freedom" to be the nebulous and boundless concept that Libertarians seem to hold. Freedom cannot be separated from the obligation to use it responsibly and, generally speaking, it ends when it threatens the freedom of others. As I said, there is no First Amendment right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and I have no problem with the government enforcing law to that effect. What you conceptualize as freedom is about as useful and beneficial to society as the Reign of Terror was to France; mob rule with no mechanism to thwart tyranny of the majority.

I didnt want to go there in this thread. I supported it for the same reasons I discussed for anti-discrimination laws however I think it has achieved it's goals (as much as it ever will) and it's time to wrap it up. I also dont like the idea of that, but again....see the greater societal good for the targeted groups AND society in general.

So is it safe to say that your views on discrimination are subjective, as opposed to absolute?

For instance, forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding is okay...what if some skinhead wanted 6 dozen fresh cookies shaped like swastikas for the annual Mississippi White Power Festival? Is that okay?

you really need to read up on history, your statements are factually wrong about religion being used to view minorities as lessers, it also applies to women too.

are you just claiming that YOUR personally dont see the relation because you feel their arguments of religion and woman cant be justified and were stupid to you? but you feel it can be justified against sexual orientation.

i dont understand how you separate them at all, when the reality is they are the same please explain

also moral convictions are meaningless when they break the law and infring on legal/civil/equal rights

You are confusing religion, an institution of man, with the Bible. They are not same thing. I am not trying to tell you that people did not hide behind the church or their warped view of God as those issues were fought. This is not about the history of man nor the history of the church... this is about what the Living Word actually says. Again, the Bible is pretty explicit about homosexual behavior. No where in the Bible does it tell you that being black is an abomination, but it says such about homosexual behavior many times. Homosexuality is a moral issue; being black is not. Since you do not know what the Bible says on the subject, this is lost on you.

My point is that the court should respect mainstream moral conviction that has strong Biblical foundation (the guy has a reasonable moral basis to believe what he does.. and therefore, the courts are trampling on his moral convictions... particularly when asking for specific performance ... making him bake the cake). If the Holy Bible flat out said that homosexual marriage is against the will of God (a verse in its own)... would you concede his moral basis? If so, then it simply becomes an issue of how explicit? If you would not concede his moral basis, then... God help ya.

US law generally respects legitimate moral convictions and often allows latitude to full variance of the civil law when it conflicts with moral conviction (the draft being one such example).

OK... now we have to resort in insult and insolence. There goes the adult discussion.

So, apparently you are not very well educated on the Bible or you would get what I am talking about. Yes, there are many (uneducated in the Bible) that use it to support their warped views of the world. I understand that, but this argument is not about that. Its about having a world view based upon the Bible rather than a worldview that you try to justify by the Bible.

That said, I dare you to find a substantive biblical defense for bigotry towards blacks. While you will find no references to God or his prophets declaring the black man an abomination, you can rather easily find such references about homosexual behavior. Now, I could appreciate various interpretations of this; I certainly respect the interpretation that the owner of the Masterpiece Cake (which, by the way is about 200 yards from my office) had on this....

In this, I am not personally making any moral judgments about gays; nor would I do the same thing as this gentlemen. For the record, I have openly gay friends, clients and employees. This is not my personal worldview. However, as a strong Christian, I absolutely understand (and support) this guy's convictions.

????

Anyway, are you saying that a 'religious' moral objection is more important or has more legal standing than any other type of moral objection? That something can only be an abomination for a religious person? Are you specfiying Christians?

The point is....the bakery owner objected based on his moral objections...it was religious based. Religious or not, there are people that have moral objections against gays and *they may not discriminate against them based on that.*

It should relate only to government and public services, not private. If the government bakery didn't want to supply them with a cake, OK I'd understand the argument. If a private business doesn't want to supply them with a cake well that's their prerogative. Stupid as it reduces income, and if people protest and boycott you could go out of business. But that's also part of the point.

Any business that opens to the public is a public business, not a private one. If they don't want to abide by public policy then don't open a business to the public. Pretty simple.

No, I just don't believe "freedom" to be the nebulous and boundless concept that Libertarians seem to hold. Freedom cannot be separated from the obligation to use it responsibly and, generally speaking, it ends when it threatens the freedom of others. As I said, there is no First Amendment right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and I have no problem with the government enforcing law to that effect. What you conceptualize as freedom is about as useful and beneficial to society as the Reign of Terror was to France; mob rule with no mechanism to thwart tyranny of the majority.

First "compel" and "force"...now "obligation". Yeah, you're not Nazi-like at all.

The gay wedding had no freedom denied. They could've went down the road and found a non-judgmental baker to bake a cake identical to the one they wanted this guy to bake.

The business owner made a business decision based on his belief - probably to the detriment of his own business, both in that transaction and possibly due to negative PR backlash.

Yours is a position of persecuting those guilty of thoughtcrime. It honestly wouldn't shock me if you strenuously objected to a "jury of your peers", and would prefer to dish out your own form of oppressive law that you think, for some strange reason, is beneficial and benevolent to all.

All you're doing is supporting a cult of personality, much like your Bavarian idol of 85 years back.